THOUGH, I am not too thrilled about the idea of going all "digital", meaning no prints at all. From a historical and archival stand point there are issues. Yes, technology changes, and technologies go obsolete, but a few seem to extend into the future and are less lost. Vinyl records and paper books from the past and today are still here. So look at all the formats that are virtually obsolete now but you can't easily find anything to view or read it with: VHS, Beta, 8" Floppy Disks, 5.25" Floopy Disks, Diskettes, Audio Cassettes, Laser Disks (video), (consumer 1/4") Reel to Reel Magnetic Tape, 78 rpm Records. Not every music album or movie has been reissued to CD, DVD or Blu-ray. Also there are formats that never caught on and may have had releases that were unique such as DVD Audio, HD CD, Mini-CD, Enhanced Music CD and others. There are old computer games and software that were DOS or Apple O/S that are unusable today. And some might still be fun. Game Boxes keep changing as well. What would happen as "display" screens change, can you still view your old image files? Pre-RGB? Look what changes computers have gone through. Just think of all the UHH discussions of the incompatibility of Canon lenses through the years from pre-AE-1 to "AE-1" to "Rebel" to Full Format and Cropped Factor lenses of today. Not everything is on the Web, especially things prior to 1980. I have 1950's and even later Jazz and Rock LP albums that have never been reissued. The true fan of music and film lives in the past as well as the present and future. Note vinyl has made a come-back as it sounds warmer and more natural and real to many music fans. I've noted before I like color photography as digital fine, but for black & white I much prefer silver prints. Just think if there were no enlargers or printers at all anymore. Scanning a negative to digital is not quite like using a negative directly to print. A file is more like a specific "print" of a negative image not the original film negative. Ansel Adams printed a negative differently from time to time, trying different interpretations by dodging and burning differently. And how could you create a Wynn Bullock print from a scanned negative other than by using a lot of Photoshop processing? Why do people collect 1950's Automobiles?

But yes, for much of the consumer market, your points are totally valid. But it does not portray a future I'd want. But, then I am seldom a futurist. I bought my first PC in 1994 and first DSLR in 2010. And own 5,000+ LPs & CDs.

I still shoot digital like when I used film, slowly and methodically, never "spray & pray". Oh, I know the Steppenwolf song you mean. ;-)

Best film source for me is B and H online. They have a good selection of fresh unexpired slide and negative film, color and B&W film, and they sell prepaid mailers for processing by Dwayne's Photo in Parsons KS. A mailer with postage will run about $15 a roll for Fuji Velvia 50 color transparencies (they come back as a single roll-no cardboard). Or you can get a better price for processing just color negatives directly at the Dwyne's website www.dwaynesphoto.com.

Dwayn'es Photo will process just the 36 color negatives for $4 a roll plus $4.50 shipping for the first roll and 50 cents for each additional roll. A CD is an extra $3 a roll.

I went to my local K-Mart yesterday and they will process a roll of 36 exposures 35mm color negative film with prints and a CD for $14. But they don't return your negatives, they destroy them. And they don't do slides. And you have to buy prints, they won't just offer you a CD without prints.

Bear in mind that the CD's you get from all these places are less than 5MB a picture, so fine for the internet or computer or even a flat screen TV, but you can not get poster size prints out of them. But for a small fee they are convenient as a contact sheet to pick out a shot you might want to scan yourself to crop, or to make a large print from the negative or transparency.

Walmart is now a no option for me. Since I have yet to get more than a few print worthy shots out of a roll, it seems a waste to pay for all 36 prints. And not getting slides or even getting my negatives back makes no sense for me either. I guess they are catering to the disposable camera and snap shot shooters.

"Since I have yet to get more than a few print worthy shots out of a roll ... "

Sounds rather sad. Is this because of incorrect exposures, out of focus, or manner of portraying your subjects? Is your digital success rate equally poor? If it is because of any of these reasons, it would be much cheaper to become proficient shooting digital before trying film, as the actual act of shooting is the same. You should be getting much more than "a few" keepers from every 36 exposures, film or digital.